-
Composition / save frame as
Using composition / save frame as, I find that when i then import the resulting still image back into the comp to use as a still, the scale/position of it does not match the original frame that was grabbed(saved). While I can fiddle around and rescale/reposition to match the original, it is a bit random and when cut against the original does not exactly match.
While I believe the saved image is correct as a 2D file, when brought back into the comp and made 3D is where the mismatch occurs as the saved image is taken from a 2D frame. Specifically, this is a still frame taken from a Trapcode Particular sequence (which has to remain as a 2D in the comp)or there is a yellow warning triangle. If I “save image” when the trapcode layer is in 3D mode the resulting image is still wrong size (too small) if it saved normally it comes in too big. Not sure if there is a way to keep it accurate?the image below shows the sizing issues. The middle size is the correct original frame that was copied. The bigger size is the frame saved and reimported with 3D enabled after import and the smaller one is the reimported image after it was captured with the orignal trapcode layer in 3D (as opposed to the correct 2D mode)
AE CS 5.5 win 10
-
12 Replies
-
1920 x 1080
Assumed issue would be relative to any frame size. Original comp is 1920 x 1080 and saved frame is comp size 1920 x 1080 the reimported frame is 1920 x 1080 but it’s relative size changes when it is made to a 3d layer. -
Correct…and all layers are at 0 on z axis, except for the trapcode z axis which is greyed out (as it performs in its own 3D space on a 2D layer).
The only other workaround is to disable the camera (cancels the 3rd axix), but then the image on the layer i am trying to copy is is mostly off the screen. I then need to center it and then make the “saved frame”. Again a number of manual adjustments that then need to be undone.
I guess I thought there might be something more obvious that I was overlooking?
-
Why are you turning it into a 3D layer?
-
It is an element in a sequence with a camera move.
-
Particular already follows the comp camera as a 2D layer with the effect applied. Turning the layer into 3D results in “double” 3D transformation, your Particular effect is already 3D as the Particular camera matches the comp camera, and then you add another 3D transformation with the comp camera for the layer if you turn it to 3D. That second 3D transformation is extra, unnecessary and will actually result in the effect NOT following the camera. You end up moving the Particular effect twice as much as the camera while doing a 3D to 2D to 3D conversion in between.
-
I think I wasn’t too clear. I am not turning the Particular layer into a 3d layer (it is already 3D in its own way). It is the resulting still frame that I am taking from the particular layer that I am turning into a 3D layer when that still frame is imported back into the comp so that it operates and matches the particular layer from which it was taken.
As noted above, the only reliable solution that I can do with some consistency is to temporarily disable the camera from the comp (which displaces the particular image off axis) and then to centre that by matching the co-ordinates, then save the frame. I then have to reposition the layer back to its original position, re-enebale the camera, and then when that still frame is brought back in and made 3D it will match the same position and scale of the original.
-
Are you perhaps looking at some view other than Active Camera?
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
No. only using the one camera
-
Yes, but if your viewer is set to an orthographic or custom view, the render (from the active camera) may not match the view.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
Yes that is part of the issue; as I mentioned previously, I would have to turn the active camera off to get an accurate grab of the frame I need, but the frame (or the contents on it) are then all over the place which requires bringing the contents back into the frame by repositioning, then taking the still frame and then undoing those changes to revert all back to how things were. While I previously mentioned this I was not sure if that was “the” way to go or if I was missing something?
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up